What We Lose When We Eliminate Controversial Content

[Sepulchrave II]

For you maybe. I see hypocrisy.

Subjects vs objects explained

 

[AnotherGuy]

Subjects vs objects explained

Is it your contention that men should not draw women in fantasy in manner that is sexy?
And I'd prefer not to have to define sexy. I think we all know what I mean. Apologies, I'm just trying to avoid tedious conversations.

EDIT: And for the record, regarding your subjects vs objects.
The idea that Beyonce sexualising herself is A-ok, but that an artist taking those repeated depictions of a woman and then drawing a sexy warrior is somehow over the line and being sexist smacks of hypocrisy. It doesn't matter to me, how many links you provide. We can agree to disagree.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Is it your contention that men should not draw women in fantasy in manner that is sexy?
And I'd prefer not to have to define sexy. I think we all know what I mean. Apologies, I'm just trying to avoid tedious conversations.

I'm trying to explain why Beyonce expressing her sexuality is different from male fantasy artists drawing sexualized pictures of women.

People can draw or paint whatever they like. Again, you are conflating notions of "should not" and "cannot" with the actual substance of the discussion.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm trying to explain why Beyonce expressing her sexuality is different from male fantasy artists drawing sexualized pictures of women.

Beyonce know what makes her attractive and thus delivers on that.
An artist knows what is appealing about a woman and thus delivers on that.
The argument is that the latter is sexist. Do you agree?

 

[Bagpuss]

Yes, there is a percentage above zero. For one, there's nothing wrong with sexy art when it's appropriate to the scene. If I have a picture of a tavern (to pick a rather random example) and it includes a singer on a stage that looks like Jessica Rabbit, well, fair enough. That's pretty understandable. Context matters.

But, when nearly every armored female character has boob windows and bare midriff, well, that's maybe not a good look.

Yeah it wasn't even like that in the early days of RPGs, for example Aleena the Cleric from the 1983 Red box D&D is covered head to toe in in armor. But sure women were much more often presented as a damsel in distress, than PCs and even female fighters often had exposed cleavage.

Again, I know you're terribly concerned about this whole "never again" thing and keep repeatedly asking, but, it's not really productive.

I think these videos say it best:

Yeah they are both about video games, so not sure how useful they are, the CRPG armor (especially the ones coming from Asia) are a lot different from what you tend to get illustrated in tabletop RPGs. The great thing about RPGs is you can visualise your character however you like you aren't tied to what is coded into the game. So even if all the D&D illustrations had bare midriffs (which most don't now) you wouldn't have to.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Re: Beyonce and female empowerment, I always found that argument a little weird. Is she really dressing like that because she wants to and it makes her feel empowered, or is she dressing like that because that's what's expected of her as a woman in the entertainment industry? Is she choosing those outfits herself, or is there a costume designer behind the scenes putting together her ensembles? A lot of times it feels like her and entertainers like her are selling a "female empowerment fantasy" more than they're actually being empowered women. But I don't know, I can't claim to follow any of them close enough to have a strong opinion about it one way or another.

 

[Irlo]

It's funny that when Beyonce struts her stuff semi nude and suggestively in her music videos she is considered "fierce" and a "strong" woman and standing up for women's rights - but hey a little cleavage in D&D and we lose our minds as everyone reaches for their puritanical pitchforks.

Some people have expressed some opinions on a D&D forum. None of us have lost our minds and none of us are carrying pitchforks, puritanical or otherwise. What's the point of mischaracterizing this discussion?

 

[AnotherGuy]

Some people have expressed some opinions on a D&D forum. None of us have lost our minds and none of us are carrying pitchforks, puritanical or otherwise. What's the point of mischaracterizing this discussion?

Some quotes...

Why do you need erotica in your non-erotic RPGs?

Are you making art for a non-erotic and hopefully non-sexist RPG? Totally inappropriate.

In rpg book after book after book where the majority of female depictions in the books are chainmail bikinis? Maybe we really don’t need those.

What is the point of mischaracterising this discussion indeed.

 

[Kariotis]

Yeah, these comments all sound pretty harmless to me. Or is it puritanical to expect a wide range diverse art for many people and tastes in your tabletop RPG, not mainly art that arouses erotic titillation mainly aimed at cis-gender heterosexual males?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Re: Beyonce and female empowerment, I always found that argument a little weird. Is she really dressing like that because she wants to and it makes her feel empowered, or is she dressing like that because that's what's expected of her as a woman in the entertainment industry? Is she choosing those outfits herself, or is there a costume designer behind the scenes putting together her ensembles? A lot of times it feels like her and entertainers like her are selling a "female empowerment fantasy" more than they're actually being empowered women. But I don't know, I can't claim to follow any of them close enough to have a strong opinion about it one way or another.

I don't know whether it is empowering or not, but I don't see anything wrong with an adult expressing their themselves that way